- 10 -
the issue concerns dominion and control. Respondent posits that
because petitioners had dominion and control over all of the
forfeited funds, which were originally earned through an apparent
illegal activity, the proceeds represent taxable income to
petitioners.
The mere receipt and possession of money does not by itself
constitute gross income. See, e.g., Liddy v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1985-107, affd. 808 F.2d 312 (4th Cir. 1986). Gross income,
as used in section 61(a), means the accrual of some gain, profit,
or benefit to the taxpayer. In this regard, the Supreme Court
explained that a "gain `constitutes taxable income when its
recipient has such control over it that, as a practical matter, he
derives readily realizable economic value from it.'" James v.
United States, 366 U.S. 213, 219 (1961)(quoting Rutkin v. United
States, 343 U.S. 130, 137 (1952)). In determining what constitutes
gross income, mere dominion and control over money and property, as
may be exercised by a debtor or trustee, is not necessarily
decisive. Rather, all relevant facts and circumstances must be
considered. Liddy v. Commissioner, supra. A taxpayer has dominion
and control over cash when he or she has the freedom to use it at
will, even though that freedom may be assailable by persons with
better title. Rutkin v. United States, supra. For instance, the
use of money for personal purposes is an indication of dominion and
control. Woods v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-611, affd. per
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011